|
When this document came up on eBay recently, I couldn't resist buying it simply because the content was so strange. (I did manage to resist buying the original US trademark documents for the trademark "K & D". Cool but ultimately not so interesting.)
Here are some observations about this document: It's a carbon copy, presumably because the original was sent to the addressee. It's on K&D letterhead. It's early letterhead because it still prominently features K&D's original watch key products. No sign yet of the owl logo that appears on the back cover of "Staking Tools and How to Use Them" in 1910. An early design makes sense for a letter dated 1902. (Note the capital "I" that was used for the "1" in the date...did typewriter keyboards not have a "1" key in 1902 or is this some sort of strange typo?) It's from an employee of Hammel, Riglander & Co.. The note in the lower left corner "Dict. J.W.R." likely means it was dictated by Jacob Wolf Riglander himself. By 1921, J.W. Riglander was listed as the president of the corporation. (Hammel, Riglander & Co. was incorporated July 14, 1909 so the unincorporated company is the one involved here in 1902.) |
The writer refers to K&D in the third person. Why would that be for a letter on K&D letterhead?
The letter is about a contract dispute with C. G. (Carl G.) Harstrom of Peekskill, NY. Harstrom made watch mainsprings as early as 1891 and was granted US patent 647832 on April 17, 1900 for a watch hand remover. Presumably the rights to this patent and products based on it are at issue here. K&D sold their "No. 310A Improved Sensible Hand Remover" marked "pat'd 4/17/1900, 5/18/1909". The earlier patent dates are a match. The May 1909 date refers to US patent 922096, granted to Frank R. Cunningham and assigned to K&D. Cunningham was also the inventor on K&D's earliest Inverto patent (US 923,495). Given the date of this letter, perhaps a No. 310 Sensible Hand Remover was sold before the improvements of the 1909 patent were available. [Update: K&D Book of Tools No 6 from sometime around 1909 confirms that there was a No. 310.]
Boiling this all together, here's a hypothesis that might explain its oddities.
There was some sort of close business relationship between Hammel, Riglander and K&D as far back as 1902. Otherwise, why would J.W. Riglander of Hammel, Riglander be using K&D letterhead?
But Hammel, Riglander and K&D must have still been something like separate operating companies because of the way the writer refers to K&D. Otherwise, one might expect K&D to be referred to in the first person as "we". Instead, he used "we" to refer to some other entity or combination of entities and to K&D as "they".
Perhaps there was a formal partnership between Hammel, Riglander and K&D? Or had Hammel, Riglander acquired K&D at this early date?
I may never discover an authoritative explanation of this letter, but it was interesting trying to track down what it was all about.
The letter is about a contract dispute with C. G. (Carl G.) Harstrom of Peekskill, NY. Harstrom made watch mainsprings as early as 1891 and was granted US patent 647832 on April 17, 1900 for a watch hand remover. Presumably the rights to this patent and products based on it are at issue here. K&D sold their "No. 310A Improved Sensible Hand Remover" marked "pat'd 4/17/1900, 5/18/1909". The earlier patent dates are a match. The May 1909 date refers to US patent 922096, granted to Frank R. Cunningham and assigned to K&D. Cunningham was also the inventor on K&D's earliest Inverto patent (US 923,495). Given the date of this letter, perhaps a No. 310 Sensible Hand Remover was sold before the improvements of the 1909 patent were available. [Update: K&D Book of Tools No 6 from sometime around 1909 confirms that there was a No. 310.]
Boiling this all together, here's a hypothesis that might explain its oddities.
There was some sort of close business relationship between Hammel, Riglander and K&D as far back as 1902. Otherwise, why would J.W. Riglander of Hammel, Riglander be using K&D letterhead?
But Hammel, Riglander and K&D must have still been something like separate operating companies because of the way the writer refers to K&D. Otherwise, one might expect K&D to be referred to in the first person as "we". Instead, he used "we" to refer to some other entity or combination of entities and to K&D as "they".
Perhaps there was a formal partnership between Hammel, Riglander and K&D? Or had Hammel, Riglander acquired K&D at this early date?
I may never discover an authoritative explanation of this letter, but it was interesting trying to track down what it was all about.